Green v. Stevenson
Filing
35
OPINION AND ORDER adopting 29 Report and Recommendation. Respondent's 24 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and Petitioner's § 2254 petition is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 1/26/2016. (mwal)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Willie M. Green, #334538,
Civil Action No.: 0:14-4407-BHH
Petitioner,
vs.
Opinion and Order
Robert M. Stevenson, III, Warden,
Respondent.
Petitioner, Willie M. Green, (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed this application
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), DSC., the action was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, for pretrial handling and a Report
and Recommendation (“Report” or “R&R”). Magistrate Judge Gossett recommends that
Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and Petitioner’s § 2254
petition be dismissed. (ECF No. 29.) The Report and Recommendation sets forth in
detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter and the Court incorporates
them without recitation.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner filed this action against Respondent alleging, inter alia, ineffective
assistance of trial counsel. On September 30, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report; and on October 19, 2015, Petitioner filed his Objections. (ECF No. 31.) Having
carefully reviewed the record, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge has accurately
and adequately summarized the disputed and undisputed facts relevant to this action.
The Court has reviewed the objections, but finds them to be without merit. Therefore, it
will enter judgment accordingly.1
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the district court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the district court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71
(1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of
the Report to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit
the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court need not conduct a de
novo review when a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not
direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and
recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the
absence of a timely filed, specific objection, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions are
reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416
F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
DISCUSSION
The Magistrate Judge found that Grounds One, Two, and Three were
procedurally defaulted and the Court agrees. In her thorough seventeen-page Report,
the Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner had failed to show cause for his procedural
default because he could not show that the claims were substantial and had not
1
As always, the Court says only what is necessary to address Petitioner’s objections against the already
meaningful backdrop of a thorough Report of the Magistrate Judge, incorporated entirely by specific
reference, herein, to the degree not inconsistent. Exhaustive recitation of law and fact exists there.
2
demonstrated prejudice. See Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309, 1318–21 (2012);
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 749–50 (1991); Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 687 (1984). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s thoughtful and
comprehensive discussion of these claims and, therefore, is unable to review Grounds
One, Two, and Three under § 2254.
The Court further agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Ground Four
fails to state a cognizable § 2254 claim and should therefore be dismissed. Ground
Four alleges ineffective assistance of PCR counsel. (ECF No. 1 at 11.) As the
Magistrate Judge correctly stated, “a freestanding claim alleging ineffectiveness of
counsel in a state collateral review proceeding is not a cognizable ground for relief in
federal habeas proceedings.” (R&R at 15 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(i) (“The
ineffectiveness or incompetence of counsel during Federal or State collateral postconviction proceedings shall not be a ground for relief in a proceeding arising under
section 2254.”); Martinez, 132 S. Ct. at 1320 (stating that “while § 2254(i) precludes
Martinez from relying on the ineffectiveness of his postconviction attorney as a ‘ground
for relief,’ it does not stop Martinez from using it to establish ‘cause’” for an otherwise
procedurally defaulted ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim)).).
Petitioner’s objections consist of nothing more than arguments that the
Magistrate Judge has already considered and rejected. Thus, the Court is tasked only
with review of the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions for clear error. Because the Court
agrees with the cogent analysis by the Magistrate Judge, it need not extensively
3
discuss those same issues for a second time here. Therefore, the Court will overrule
Petitioner’s objections.
CONCLUSION
After a thorough review of the Report, the record, and the applicable law, the
Court finds that Petitioner’s objections are without merit and the Magistrate Judge’s
conclusions evince no clear error. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and by the
Magistrate Judge, the Court overrules Petitioner’s objections and adopts the Report
and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Respondent’s motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED and Petitioner’s § 2254 petition is
DISMISSED with prejudice.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The governing law provides that:
(c) (2) A certificate of appealability may issue . . .only if the applicant has made
a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(c) (3) The certificate of appealability. . . shall indicate which specific issue or
issues satisfy the showing required in paragraph (2).
28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find this court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is
likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S, 322, 336 (2003); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F. 3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2011).
4
In this case, the legal standard for the issuance of a certificate of appealability has not
been met. Therefore, a certificate of deniability is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
January 26, 2016
Greenville, South Carolina
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?